Dostluk Ormanı - 10 Nazlı Pofuduk’un Büyük Sürprizi - Daisy Meadows ücretsiz kitap indir

Jessica Ngo sicango — This was sort of lovely and beautiful, though not particularly suspenseful or compelling. I think it almost would have worked better as a short story. I did enjoy it, though I agree w cassi that the epilogue was dumb. It was unnecessary too. Looking forward to discussing!

Randolph Tan randolphtan — I really liked this book right from the beginning. I enjoyed Berg's style of writing and her ability to create empathy for characters. It was sad due to the subject matter but understandable. I have to say this book made me cry and I have not read many that have done that to me in a while. There is one scene toward the end that tears streaming down my cheeks. Even though it is sad and a little predictable, it is hopeful and a good read.

Vincci Louise vinccilouise — Amazing book! I couldn't put it down so I read it in two nights. I love how Dekker can surprise me wih the twists of his story plot. I highly recommend this book, and thanks to my Dad for letting me read it first. Now he has to hurry so I wont ruin the ending. :)

Kevin Horta kevinloui — Like the jokes at the start of each chapter. Story of youth and friendship.

Warren Niece wniece — Comment: Nomos, Technos, Phronesis; and they all fight it out to see who should rule the City. - Welcome to Hell. ...The Eleatic Stranger (Visitor/Guest) appears in only two Platonic Dialogues; The Statesman and the Sophist. But never forget, Socrates is going to die. No matter who rules. His coming condemnation, and the subterranean critique of Socrates by the Stranger need to be seen together. Are Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher one or two or three? A not unrelated question, btw: Are the Stranger, Socrates and Plato one or two or three? That is: Is Socrates, or is it the Stranger, or is it perhaps Plato himself that is a Sophist, a Statesman, or a Philosopher, or a mixture of these? (Keep in mind that Nietzsche, in "Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' called Plato the first 'mixed type".) The question do the Sophist, Statesman, Philosopher "constitute a triad, may be considered as answered. They are but two." Or so old Jacob Klein here maintains; but in the extraordinary exchange of letters between Kojeve and Leo Strauss (in 'On Tyranny') Kojeve maintains that the Stranger is merely a Sophist while Strauss doubts this pointing out that the Stranger is no mere parrot (of the Parmenidean ONE) when he maintains that Philosopher-Sophist-Stateman are three. But perhaps Strauss will forgive us for thinking that the gist of his remarks (and the Strangers) lead one to think that our Philosopher is a Triad, i.e., a One-in-Three. As Stanley Rosen pointed out, regarding Tejera, "I found more difficult his claim that the Stranger is intended to represent sophistry. The thesis would have been more persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy." I continue to think that the Stranger = Sophist view is wrong, but I also think it needs to be addressed in a book length essay.